Meet RedState’s Palin-Deranged Dumdums

Governor Sarah Palin’s endorsement of the world’s premier businessman Donald Trump for president over a few first term members of the do-nothing-real-but-perpetually-pontificate Senate and a handful of liberal governors inspiring naps nationwide has brought out all the crazy.

And the crazy has a hub. RedState, as C4P readers know, has been the leading voice in intelligence deficiency and moral black hole-edness when it comes to anything Palin for years now. After Palin publicly reprimanded and deservedly shamed Erick Erickson, the man-shaped former editor-in-chief of the site, for an equal parts childish and perverted photoshopping stunt (among other things) he seemed to mostly keep the flying monkeys in line.

Lately however, under new management by Leon Wolf, there has been a resurgence of Palin Derangement Syndrome. This, for the unaware, is a neurological disease in which otherwise seemingly rational beings betray their own epistemology and fundamental thinking when presented with the commonsensical actions of a housewife from Alaska.

There are four writers in particular deserving of our attention; let’s begin with Mr. Erickson’s protégé.

Leon Wolf

Leon Wolf cannot understand Sarah Palin’s speeches. Try as he may, he just cannot decipher the meaning of the words coming out of her mouth. He is a student of what I refer to as the Anderson Cooper School of Condescension. This is a school of thought in which seemingly thoughtful and educated people can no longer understand common words and phrases when used by certain people of perceived inferior pedigree and/or intelligence.

It seeps through when he is ostensibly writing about campaign schedules or Governor Bill Walker (who, in his mind apparently, Palin controls, owns, and operates).

Her endorsement speech was “rambling” and “barely coherent.” And of course, as we all know, it was “widely panned both in the conservative media and also by the audience who attended the rally.”

He says it is so, and so it is! Of course. No pull quotes from the audience (even though it was widely panned by everyone there). And by the way if RedState is the standard of conservative media, then I would consider it a compliment that the speech was panned.

Also, Mr. Wolf’s tweets from an Iowa event where Palin addressed Steve King’s accusations of being bought by the Trump campaign make up the meat of an article written by Caleb Howe (we’ll get to him later). The basic premise of these tweets was that Palin’s speech was not received well by the audience. First of all, so what? Have you met Jeb Bush? Have you seen Cruz’s stand-up material lately? And second, you’re lying.

In these tweets, Wolf commented that when Palin joked about King huffing ethanol, he could “hear a pin drop.” Meanwhile, watching the video with my ear pressed to the speaker, I heard no pins dropping. Not even mice relieving themselves on cotton. What I heard instead were chuckles at Palin’s joke. Odd.

He then, perhaps realizing how easily dismissed his drivel would be when people outside the room actually got to watch the speech, posted a snippet of video to prove his point. The video, as you have probably guessed at this point, is eleven seconds capturing the end of one sentence and the beginning of another.

“Look, I’m not making this up,” he types literally as he is making this up. In the process capturing, by the way, a captive audience on their feet with cameras overhead.

It’s like shooting fish in a barrel with these kids.

Now these are very trivial points. But that is the point. Why lie about things that are so small and so easily proven false? It’s derangement. Intellectual dwarfism.

He goes on with this precious gem: “after it is all said and done, Palin will always have a cachet in terms of people who are willing to buy her books and watch her on TV, because they like her so much that the quality and content of her words don’t actually matter.”

Mr. Wolf, I hope your livelihood is dependent upon the type of brainless rubes you describe here and not actual thinking Palin Conservatives. Based on the quality and content of your words, you’re going to need them.

The article is meant to be a come-to-Jesus moment for anyone who would still hold Sarah Palin in high regards, but despite wishing I were drunk while reading it, Ms. Wright’s writing misses the mark

It descends very quickly into a diatribe of lazy years-old talking points, and it features all the key PDS buzzwords: half-term governor, failed vice-presidential bid, and reality TV show.

But that’s not all. For inaccuracy and snark were not enough. Ms. Wright can do creepier than that. No, full on depravity was the goal! She would be remiss, after all, not to update us on Bristol Palin’s family: “She’s now got baby #2 for baby-daddy #2, as well. She’s still single. So much for learning from our mistakes, abstinence, and anything resembling moral clarity.”

Cute use of number signs, Ms. Wright. Makes you seem youthful! And, as usual, keep it classy.

The best part of this whole article, though, was the editor’s note that prefaced it positively doting on Ms. Wright’s gutter writing. I can only assume this is Leon Wolf, but I’m open to being corrected. Here is the note in full:

Editor’s Note: I wrestled all day with whether to promote this excellent post to the front page. Ironically, the main thing that gave me pause was the fact that so many people suggested today that Palin might have been literally drunk, even though that is not what this author is doing. In the end, I decided “Why not?” I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did.

Poor, stupid.

streiff (I’m not kidding)

The courageously anonymous and gender-nonspecific streiff has some concerns about Sarah Palin, and they are myriad. Lately though it started with Palin “using her nitwit daughter to attack Ted Cruz” and then of course “blam(ing) Obama for her son having combat-related PTSD.”

Mr. streiff, I assume, has evidence proving that Palin ordered her daughter to reprimand Ted Cruz on her personal blog. Why else would he make such a claim, right? So, we’ll wait on that.

Ms. streiff’s lie that Palin blamed President Obama for her son’s PTSD is more easily debunked, and one need look no further than streiff’s own article to dispel this smear.

That’s right, folks. A word-for-word transcript of what Palin actually said regarding her son and PTSD is included in the very article in which streiff falsely claims Palin said she blamed Obama for her son’s condition.

Remember the intelligence deficiency?

He/she then goes on to mock Palin for her response when “host Savannah Guthrie asked her if it was unfair to blame Obama for her son’s PTSD.”

“Palin denied she made such a statement,” writes streiff.

Yeah…because she didn’t.

The anonymous streiff continues to circle the drain. Palin is a “caricature of her former self,” lacks “self-awareness,” and is claiming the status of a “permanent victim.”

Again, this bunk from streiff as Palin is being drilled by certified non-geniuses Guthrie and Lauer about something she never said (and making mincemeat of them, for the record). But, sure, claiming victim status. God bless.

The streiff remarks, “Another day. Another rant from Sarah Palin that makes one think a lot less of her. Strike that. I’ve already reached the point where I can’t have a lower opinion of her than I currently have.

Exchange “Sarah Palin” with “streiff” and “her” with “whatever the hell a streiff is” and this statement becomes accurate.

Caleb Howe

We’ll remember Caleb Howe from his brief mention earlier. He wrote the farcical article based on Leon Wolf’s silly tweets about Sarah Palin delivering her response to Steve King’s accusations to a vacuum silent room in Iowa.

As explored earlier, the room was not a 90’s underground rave, but it was hardly the “absolutely dead silent” room described in this fictitious piece.

Howe chimes that “Palin was obviously angry and striking back” at King’s implication of some impropriety taking place to get Palin to support Trump.

Well, imagine that! Angry at being wrongfully accused of being paid for an endorsement. Unthinkable!

Howe knows as well as King that this was a totally baseless claim designed to shock. King offered no further evidence that what he was saying had any inkling of truth to it. It was pure wishful thinking—not unlike Howe’s writing. Again, though, I look forward to the pair providing their evidence.

Howe, like his colleagues, climbs down even lower into the crevasse of fact absence and pure conjecture by claiming that Palin was “basically implying that being from Iowa means you’re a dumb hick addicted to government subsidies.”

What?!

Methinks Mr. Howe let loose a Freudian slip of how he sees Iowans, because that sure as hell never came up in Palin’s takedown of King.